Since Designated Marksman hasn't mentioned it yet
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/02/haditha.probe.ap/index.html
From the looks of things it seems ol' Murtha may of been correct. Seems the accusations have some merit to them. It should be interesting to see how this plays out.
And in other Iraq news since everyone is focused on Israel:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/03/iraq.hearing/index.html
Despite the Whitehouse's denials it seems Iraq is sliding towards civil war. Well, sliding towards the point where they'll finally admit that it has been for some time.
I will be surprised if the marines that supposedly did this are charged with anything. Both because it's been such a long time since incident that it might be difficult to prove who did what, and because I have serious doubts in the will and ability of the military to actually seriously punish their own people.
Demented Hamsters
03-08-2006, 19:04
Since Designated Marksman hasn't mentioned it yet
Funny that.
Especially considering how quick he has been up til now about any and everything reported about Murtha.
Deep Kimchi
03-08-2006, 19:07
I will be surprised if the marines that supposedly did this are charged with anything. Both because it's been such a long time since incident that it might be difficult to prove who did what, and because I have serious doubts in the will and ability of the military to actually seriously punish their own people.
I would be surprised if they weren't charged.
You're saying the military hasn't punished anyone so far in this whole Iraq thing? Really?
Alleghany County
03-08-2006, 19:08
I will be surprised if the marines that supposedly did this are charged with anything. Both because it's been such a long time since incident that it might be difficult to prove who did what, and because I have serious doubts in the will and ability of the military to actually seriously punish their own people.
Actually, I think just the opposite is going to happen. I do believe that they will be charged and will be sent up the river if they are found guilty for quite a long time.
Sumamba Buwhan
03-08-2006, 19:15
Wouldnt it be great if we handed them over to the Iraqis i Haditha to decide their punishment if they are found guilty?
Deep Kimchi
03-08-2006, 19:21
Wouldnt it be great if we handed them over to the Iraqis i Haditha to decide their punishment if they are found guilty?
Why is it that so many NS posters seem to be unaware of the concept "Status of Forces Agreement"?
An overwhelming ignorance of military law I'd suppose.
Alleghany County
03-08-2006, 19:25
Why is it that so many NS posters seem to be unaware of the concept "Status of Forces Agreement"?
That is something that we do not have with Iraq yet.
Sumamba Buwhan
03-08-2006, 19:27
Why is it that so many NS posters seem to be unaware of the concept "Status of Forces Agreement"?
what's that?
I wouldn't actually condone handing them over to the Iraqis in Haditha btw. It's easy to get angry and over react, but I wouldnt want to actually follow through with such a barbaric practice. I would just hope for life in prison.
Alleghany County
03-08-2006, 19:30
what's that?
A treaty where a US Service person can be tried in the country where he allegedy broke a law. We do not have that with Iraq. Therefore, no US service personnel can be legally tried by Iraqi officials.
Deep Kimchi
03-08-2006, 19:31
what's that?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/sofa.htm
Sumamba Buwhan
03-08-2006, 19:38
A treaty where a US Service person can be tried in the country where he allegedy broke a law. We do not have that with Iraq. Therefore, no US service personnel can be legally tried by Iraqi officials.
oh interesting, thanks. I had thought that was what the ICC was for.although I believe the US won't give up their soldiers to the ICC right?
I was thinkign more along the lines of the US trying it's own soldiers and if found guilty, they would be thrown naked into the streets of Haditha while shouting to the Iraqis that "these are the bastards that killed your innocent civiliansand to do what you want with them" .
That might make them think that the US was a bit cooler and win a few hearts and minds :p
Sumamba Buwhan
03-08-2006, 19:38
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/sofa.htm
Thaks but I suck at legalese and Alleghany County explained it well enough for me anyway.
Alleghany County
03-08-2006, 19:39
oh interesting, thanks. I had thought that was what the ICC was for.although I believe the US won't give up their soldiers to the ICC right?
No we will not do that.
I was thinkign more along the lines of the US trying it's own soldiers and if found guilty, thrown naked into the streets of Haditha while shouting to the Iraqis that "these are the bastards that killed your innocent civilians" and to do what you want with them.
That might make them think that the US was a bit cooler and win a few hearts and minds :p
Unfortunately, that will violate the eighth amendment about cruel and unusual punishment.
Sumamba Buwhan
03-08-2006, 19:43
No we will not do that.
Unfortunately, that will violate the eighth amendment about cruel and unusual punishment.
s'what I thought.
Also I don't think that it is unfortunate as I really wouldn't agree with such a tactic... it's just a sadistic thought that comes with anger.
I would be surprised if they weren't charged.
We'll just have to wait and see, I guess.
You're saying the military hasn't punished anyone so far in this whole Iraq thing? Really?
I am? Damn! I'd better learn to write! I could have sworn that I said no such thing... Oh wait! Maybe it isn't me! :eek:
oh interesting, thanks. I had thought that was what the ICC was for.although I believe the US won't give up their soldiers to the ICC right?
The ICC wouldn't try them anyway, since they don't have jurisdiction.
Sumamba Buwhan
03-08-2006, 19:55
The ICC wouldn't try them anyway, since they don't have jurisdiction.
Why is that?
Wikipedia says:
The Statute provides for the ICC to have jurisdiction over three main classes of offences: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
although that is as far as I read - lol - Does it not apply to certain countries or what?
Alleghany County
03-08-2006, 19:57
Why is that?
Wikipedia says:
although that is as far as I read - lol - Does it not apply to certain countries or what?
The United States did not ratify the ICC and therefor is not applicable to the United States. Iraq also did not approve it so it does not apply to them either.
In general the only people who can try US citizens would be the US.
Sumamba Buwhan
03-08-2006, 20:04
The United States did not ratify the ICC and therefor is not applicable to the United States. Iraq also did not approve it so it does not apply to them either.
okay
Why is that?
Wikipedia says:
although that is as far as I read - lol - Does it not apply to certain countries or what?
What Alleghany County said... Basically the ICC only has juridistiction over it's members, and if the UNSC refers a case/situation to them.